WITHDRAWN

[Gunthar]

You're a lender as well. What do you do if you got accounts as collateral and they default? You use them yourself or you sell them or just say "oh well good bye money"?

Duh...the finger's laziness of early morning (or late night) uh...

I didnt want to get involved in this thread as well but at this point, since i'm a lender, there is something i'm interested about

Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea.

I have some points:

• My very personal opinion is that Lauda is right and OP is wrong: he didnt tag those accounts because collateral ready to be sold, but for other reasons and i'm sorry OP but it is the risk of our business and you should be aware of it. When you take an account as collateral you do it with a public signed message so: how would you ever think to hide it and be able to sell it without expecting a tag soon or later? Shield docet...
• As i said many times, i run my business as a "mature" person: when you decide to lend out your money you must know the risks. One of the risks to take accounts as collateral is being tagged as account farmer/encouraging accounts trading. This is a fact. So the "maturity" of my business is the attempt to use an account as collateral only from people that would not ruin their reputation for a few bucks we are para-lending here. The final goal of a lending business is to have positive earnings > defaulted loans.
  More explained here:
  

  Do as i do: dont sell the accounts. Put a signature of your service in defaulted loans accounts: you will get more customers by that advertising and will stop supporting account farmers.
  Think on long terms about your business...
  References:
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818586#msg16818586
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818509#msg16818509
  ~Gun
  

So my question (based on the list above):
Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea if you are going to feed the account market selling all yoru defaults. If you look at it like i said, yiou dont need to sell those accounts for multiple reasons:

• As long as you gain experience in that, you will get less defaulters in your business
• You can use those few defaulted accounts with your signature advertising your service and so spreading the voice about yoru business

I'd like to underline the concept once more: if i was a DT and i would see you run yoru lending busines with the only purpose to acquire collateral accounts and then sell them, i woudnt only tag your "bought" accounts: i would tag you as well.
~Gun

[Lone Shark]

So, you're saying use them and forget about your money lost? If this was the case why require useless collateral? Just do no collateral loans. So, in the end, we just lend money to trusted people on the forum. Oh right, they don't even number in the hundreds and most of them are rich enough to live without loans.

[TwitchySeal]

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

How could they enforce it if it were banned?  Banning it would only reduce transparency.

[Gunthar]

So, you're saying use them and forget about your money lost? If this was the case why require useless collateral? Just do no collateral loans. So, in the end, we just lend money to trusted people on the forum. Oh right, they don't even number in the hundreds and most of them are rich enough to live without loans.

You are missing an important part of your business marketing: the outbound sales! I dont "use" them in the way you would use an alt: i put my signature on them:

In a phisical shop you would have INBOUND sales and (if you are smart enough) the OUTBOUND sales: inbound sales are the ones that happen in your shop, like a new customer enters and buy something. The outbound sales are the ones made by your representatives or agents OUTSIDE your shop walls: they chase potential customers around, where they live, where they walk, work, fuck etc.
Ported to a forum business: the inbound sales are those coming from a borrower visiting the lending section, reading your topic and applying for a loan. The outbound sales are those coming from a user reading the off.topic section (for example) and reading someone else signature, chasing potential borrowers where they post, read, comment.

Can you imagine the amount of scams i could have done with this user > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9730 (or the amount of scam anyone else would have done if i sold this collateral?)

~Gun

[Decoded]

I don't believe Lauda is doing something wrong. If you're berating him/her, then why aren't you bullying cryptodevil? (Not that it would do anything, heh). Cryptodevil negs ANYONE who he sees buying an account.

Lauda is simply enforcing the popular idea here that accounts used for collateral can be used for scamming, and consequently sold off to another scammer.

[actmyname]

So, you're saying use them and forget about your money lost? If this was the case why require useless collateral? Just do no collateral loans. So, in the end, we just lend money to trusted people on the forum. Oh right, they don't even number in the hundreds and most of them are rich enough to live without loans.

Though Gunthar had some good points about this (which you can read above) I just want to add one more:

If you seize their account as collateral, they are down one account. It's gone forever, and you can do whatever you choose with it. If they are willing to do a no-collateral loan, it's almost as if the loanee is risking less if (when) they default. For example, while you still have the loan taken, during the time until repayment, you may decide to attempt to scam via currency exchange... or another loan provider (if they're new or stupid enough)  or any other means. Also, even with negative trust some newbies will still trust members due to their rank, so the account may have /some/ value.

When the account is seized, all those opportunities are lost. Between the time of request and the time when details are transferred (to escrow or otherwise) they can't enact any conspicuous activities.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

With that said, no member, especially default trust members, should be allowed to tag the accounts because they were lost in collateral or because they are being sold.  

Seems that someone does not really understand the trust system. Nobody can disallow you from leaving a certain rating.

Allowing members like him to act on their own for the whole community brings down the value of the community.  

There is no evidence to back up these ludicrous claims.

Here is an idea, prohibit signature campaigns!!  That is the easiest fix.  

Prohibit account sales and account collateral, even simpler.

So I call any high staff member, default trust member or above to give me a legit reason on here why another member can tag an account that is being sold or an account that is being used for collateral, when there are no rules or regulations against it??

Because that's how the system works, i.e. there are no rules. There are actions that are frowned upon, and this account happened to do one of them. FYI trust is not moderated, so calling in 'high staff member' is a waste of bytes.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

I am trying to get across here that THERE ARE NO RULES AGAINST SELLING/TRANSFERRING ACCOUNTS and THERE ARE NO RULES AGAINST USING ACCOUNTS AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN.  Because there are no rules as such, default trust members should not be allowed to abuse their level to pick and choose which accounts to mark and which ones not to mark that have been used for collateral or have been sold/transferred.  It is simple fair play.  Follow the rules and if you do not like the rules, petition to have them changed.  You should not be allowed to use your level to make the change yourself.  

There are no rules against scamming. Because there are no rules as such, default trust members should not be allowed to abuse their level to pick and choose which scammers to mark and which ones not to mark. Nice argument over here.
I'm done with this thread until a single reasonable argument is provided.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I didnt want to get involved in this thread as well but at this point, since i'm a lender, there is something i'm interested about

Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea.

I have some points:

• My very personal opinion is that Lauda is right and OP is wrong: he didnt tag those accounts because collateral ready to be sold, but for other reasons and i'm sorry OP but it is the risk of our business and you should be aware of it. When you take an account as collateral you do it with a public signed message so: how would you ever think to hide it and be able to sell it without expecting a tag soon or later? Shield docet...
• As i said many times, i run my business as a "mature" person: when you decide to lend out your money you must know the risks. One of the risks to take accounts as collateral is being tagged as account farmer/encouraging accounts trading. This is a fact. So the "maturity" of my business is the attempt to use an account as collateral only from people that would not ruin their reputation for a few bucks we are para-lending here. The final goal of a lending business is to have positive earnings > defaulted loans.
  More explained here:
  

  Do as i do: dont sell the accounts. Put a signature of your service in defaulted loans accounts: you will get more customers by that advertising and will stop supporting account farmers.
  Think on long terms about your business...
  References:
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818586#msg16818586
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818509#msg16818509
  ~Gun
  

So my question (based on the list above):
Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea if you are going to feed the account market selling all yoru defaults. If you look at it like i said, yiou dont need to sell those accounts for multiple reasons:

• As long as you gain experience in that, you will get less defaulters in your business
• You can use those few defaulted accounts with your signature advertising your service and so spreading the voice about yoru business

I'd like to underline the concept once more: if i was a DT and i would see you run yoru lending busines with the only purpose to acquire collateral accounts and then sell them, i woudnt only tag your "bought" accounts: i would tag you as well.
~Gun

Sorry, it has been a few since I have cared to get on.  I do understand Lauda and where his position is, but the facts are that there is no rules against selling these accounts in here.  There are also no rules against taking them for collateral.   With that said, no member, especially default trust members, should be allowed to tag the accounts because they were lost in collateral or because they are being sold.  For those who are using sold accounts to scam, they are not buying them here to begin with.  The real scammers are avoiding the whole system and buying elsewhere.  The #1 reason to buy an account is to make more money in a signature campaign.  if they place rules against it, then it will stop, but there are no rules prohibiting this; what that said, who is he to decide to stop someone from joining a signature campaign by making his remarks.

Allowing members like him to act on their own for the whole community brings down the value of the community.  Here is an idea, prohibit signature campaigns!!  That is the easiest fix.  Then these accounts would not be worth nothing to any other members and the prices would go down next to nothing.  80% of the lending would stop because the only collateral would be something like Altcoins, which most people will not bother borrowing when they can just exchange the coin.  So if the people who own and run the site wanted to prevent and help stop the scamming, they would just close the lending thread and prohibit signature campaigns.  Simple as that, however that will never happen.  I have a few websites in which users can apply for membership.  On all of those sites, it prevents people frmo making farmed accounts and such based a number of factors.  This protective measure would also help prevent farmed accounts and such.  It is plain as day, you can not mark a cross walk on a road, equipped with a button to push to allow you a turn to walk across and then punish the button pusher.  

So I call any high staff member, default trust member or above to give me a legit reason on here why another member can tag an account that is being sold or an account that is being used for collateral, when there are no rules or regulations against it??

Knighton, there are no rules against members leaving trust that they see fit.  You just don't like the trust you received.   You like arguing for the rules as long as they go your way, that's basically what this boils down to.

Do you have any evidence of where most accounts are bought and sold and for what purpose,  or is this an assertion just to strengthen your argument against tagging?

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

Interestingly now we have:
1) Act of calumny in the thread title, which has yet to be changed (I've given OP enough time). It is clearly wrong.
2) Trust abuse. You've started logging in alt accounts in order to spam me with negative ratings?

[actmyname]

I can understand agree that there is no rules on here where a member should be able to leave trust as they see fit; however, default trust members should be held to a higher standard.  because what they say makes a difference when someone is doing business with another member, the feedback they leave should be more regulated.  They should have to leave a reference to whatever trust they leave, not just a blanket trust which can not be proven, except by opinion.  There are plenty of great members on here who do just that without being asked.  I have lent over 20 BTC to members on this forum in the past 6 months.  I do not ask for or encourage them to leave trust for me.  It does not matter if they do, I know I am a good person and I do good things. 

I have attached a quote below:

Simply put, you should have a plan before you accept anything from a person for collateral. Suppose I decided to take credit cards as collateral (hypothetical example). Should I be blamed when I try to sell them, or can I blame the person who is preventing me from selling the cards? Although accounts are not necessarily like that, it should still be noted that both of these examples negatively impact the market. Account sales lead to spamming or scamming. There are but a few examples of times that they are not like that, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of account sales lead to either one or the other. Are you willing to contribute to that?

TL;DR - Account sales lead to scams or spam 95% of the time. Why do you think that's a good thing?

Can you please respond to it with a full argument without resorting to broken logic? This is concerning account sales, since it's what you're talking about. On the topic of accepting accounts for collateral, that's perfectly fine with me and most people as long as you don't attempt to sell it.

[Quickseller]

I'm done with this thread until a single reasonable argument is provided.

How about the fact that no one has taken anything of value against the will of of item's owner, nor has anyone attempted to do this -- in other words there has been no scam, nor a scam attempt.

[Lauda]

How about the fact that no one has taken anything of value against the will of of item's owner, nor has anyone attempted to do this -- in other words there has been no scam, nor a scam attempt.

That is a good argument. Nobody was scammed, nor am I tagging collateral accounts (hence the act of calumny).

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

2.  I have not logged into nothing and started leaving you negative feedback.

Is that so? Rating from user feryjhie:



Rating that you've left on the said user:


Something stinks here and it is not just the fish that I'm having for dinner.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.